UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7920
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RANDY CHRISTMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (2:95-cr-00198; 2:06-cv-00029)
Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anne Elizabeth Shaffer, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Monica Kaminski Schwartz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy Christmas seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as
successive and unauthorized. The order dismissing Christmas’s
§ 2255 motion is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Christmas has
not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.* We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
To the extent Christmas’s informal brief filed in this court
can be construed as a request for this court’s permission to file
a successive § 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (2000), we
deny it.
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -